Archive 2012 · $99 or $500 Gimbal
p.3 #1$99 or $500 Gimbal
cputeq wrote:
Hrm, awesome find and thank you for posting it.
I've been wanting to get the gimbal experience with my old Rokkor 600mm f/5.6 (on a NEX 5N no less), but I really didn't want to buy a gimbal head that costs more than the damn lens does.
This might just convince me to try it out.
So, if I have a big lens and I buy this, would I need to buy a special lens plate, or does this gimbal also come with that plate?
It comes with one short plate. That may or may not work depending on the center of balance when your camera is attached. So, attache the camera and balance the lens in your hands. Where is the center? If it's within an inch (either way) of the lens's tripod mounting foot bolt hole then you don't need a different plate. If it's much more than that then you will. If you do scan e-bay - I was able to get the longest Wimberley original plate for $17 used - and there are cheaper alternatives too.
Justruss,
You're looking at this from a very elevated level of awareness. But IMO that doesn't apply here. HK knock-offs are cheaper, crappier, direct and somewhat mindless copies of anything and everything they can figure out how to copy with the sole purpose of gouging out a chunk of someone else's profits. It's quite the opposite of egalitarianism or any way of attempting to better the marketplace, the product, or the world.
Itsra rearry simpuh - we'a see'a you shit, we'a copy you shit, we'a sell #1 #1 we'a takea alla ra money! We'a take ovah ra world! China #1
And I am not kidding AT ALL. I've been in it and done business with'em and that's it exactly or damn close!
Hrm, awesome find and thank you for posting it.
I've been wanting to get the gimbal experience with my old Rokkor 600mm f/5.6 (on a NEX 5N no less), but I really didn't want to buy a gimbal head that costs more than the damn lens does.
This might just convince me to try it out.
So, if I have a big lens and I buy this, would I need to buy a special lens plate, or does this gimbal also come with that plate?
It comes with one short plate. That may or may not work depending on the center of balance when your camera is attached. So, attache the camera and balance the lens in your hands. Where is the center? If it's within an inch (either way) of the lens's tripod mounting foot bolt hole then you don't need a different plate. If it's much more than that then you will. If you do scan e-bay - I was able to get the longest Wimberley original plate for $17 used - and there are cheaper alternatives too.
Justruss,
You're looking at this from a very elevated level of awareness. But IMO that doesn't apply here. HK knock-offs are cheaper, crappier, direct and somewhat mindless copies of anything and everything they can figure out how to copy with the sole purpose of gouging out a chunk of someone else's profits. It's quite the opposite of egalitarianism or any way of attempting to better the marketplace, the product, or the world.
Itsra rearry simpuh - we'a see'a you shit, we'a copy you shit, we'a sell #1 #1 we'a takea alla ra money! We'a take ovah ra world! China #1
And I am not kidding AT ALL. I've been in it and done business with'em and that's it exactly or damn close!
Apr 20, 2012 at 05:24 AM
p.3 #2$99 or $500 Gimbal
Lars Johnsson wrote:
some has low and other high margins.
I was generalizing but I cant obviously disagree with this. Still, my main point persists.... with Wimberley (or Leica as you suggested) your are paying a lot more of what the item should cost. I am totally OK with people willing to pay for those products. I am all for free pricing and free will. I just wont bite.
some has low and other high margins.
I was generalizing but I cant obviously disagree with this. Still, my main point persists.... with Wimberley (or Leica as you suggested) your are paying a lot more of what the item should cost. I am totally OK with people willing to pay for those products. I am all for free pricing and free will. I just wont bite.
Apr 20, 2012 at 08:25 AM
p.3 #3$99 or $500 Gimbal
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
BTW, it is my understanding that RRS also outsources its products.I think it's funny that somebody living in San Francisco Bay claims that RRS outsorce their product. RRS are from San Luis Obispo California 
And make their products in your own state and country
You can start a company in San Luis Obispo AND outsource products to somewhere else. Besides, as I mentioned before, I was wrong in my assumption. But in an ultimate attempt to dodge my guilt, I will blame Fredmiranda forums for starting unfounded rumors
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/965090
Javier Munoz wrote
A gimbal is an amazingly simple piece of equipment. The price that Wimberley et al charge is on the outrageous side of the equation. Gimbal heads should be priced similarly to the manfrotto 393. Having a sturdy piece of metal with a couple of knobs at 100USD is not far-fetched.BTW, it is my understanding that RRS also outsources its products.
And make their products in your own state and country You can start a company in San Luis Obispo AND outsource products to somewhere else. Besides, as I mentioned before, I was wrong in my assumption. But in an ultimate attempt to dodge my guilt, I will blame Fredmiranda forums for starting unfounded rumors
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/965090
Apr 20, 2012 at 08:30 AM
p.3 #4$99 or $500 Gimbal
Bifurcator wrote:
HK knock-offs are cheaper, crappier, direct and somewhat mindless copies of anything and everything they can figure out how to copy with the sole purpose of gouging out a chunk of someone else's profits. It's quite the opposite of egalitarianism or any way of attempting to better the marketplace, the product, or the world.
Huh? It's making the world a LOT better -- it's providing more value per dollar. That's how the whole Industrial Revolution thing worked -- if you read rants by educated gentlemen of that time, you'll find that they loudly complain about ill-bred uncough men providing cheap shoddy goods -- for cheap! Horrors!
And yet this is precisely what made the Western world rich beyond belief.
HK knock-offs are cheaper, crappier, direct and somewhat mindless copies of anything and everything they can figure out how to copy with the sole purpose of gouging out a chunk of someone else's profits. It's quite the opposite of egalitarianism or any way of attempting to better the marketplace, the product, or the world.
Huh? It's making the world a LOT better -- it's providing more value per dollar. That's how the whole Industrial Revolution thing worked -- if you read rants by educated gentlemen of that time, you'll find that they loudly complain about ill-bred uncough men providing cheap shoddy goods -- for cheap! Horrors!
And yet this is precisely what made the Western world rich beyond belief.
Apr 20, 2012 at 08:51 AM
p.3 #5$99 or $500 Gimbal
Javier Munoz wrote:
BTW, it is my understanding that RRS also outsources its products.I think it's funny that somebody living in San Francisco Bay claims that RRS outsorce their product. RRS are from San Luis Obispo California And make their products in your own state and country You can start a company in San Luis Obispo AND outsource products to somewhere else. Besides, as I mentioned before, I was wrong in my assumption. But in an ultimate attempt to dodge my guilt, I will blame Fredmiranda forums for starting unfounded rumors
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/965090
And how many companies in San Luis Obispo do you know that outsource their products ? And still say on their websites and catalogs that their stuff is 100% made in the USA. And have writings like this on every product you order from them :
Tripod 100%
MADE IN THE USA
Down to the smallest screw.
It's even more funny when you blame another forum thread where somebody say RRS equipment is made in Afghanistan
The whole thread you link to is just a joke..........and so is most of the comments in it
Sven Jeppesen wrote
Javier Munoz wrote
A gimbal is an amazingly simple piece of equipment. The price that Wimberley et al charge is on the outrageous side of the equation. Gimbal heads should be priced similarly to the manfrotto 393. Having a sturdy piece of metal with a couple of knobs at 100USD is not far-fetched.BTW, it is my understanding that RRS also outsources its products.
And make their products in your own state and country https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/965090
And how many companies in San Luis Obispo do you know that outsource their products ? And still say on their websites and catalogs that their stuff is 100% made in the USA. And have writings like this on every product you order from them :
Tripod 100%
MADE IN THE USA
Down to the smallest screw.
It's even more funny when you blame another forum thread
where somebody say RRS equipment is made in Afghanistan The whole thread you link to is just a joke..........and so is most of the comments in it
Apr 20, 2012 at 10:11 AM
p.3 #6$99 or $500 Gimbal
Lars Johnsson wrote:
BTW, it is my understanding that RRS also outsources its products.I think it's funny that somebody living in San Francisco Bay claims that RRS outsorce their product. RRS are from San Luis Obispo California And make their products in your own state and country You can start a company in San Luis Obispo AND outsource products to somewhere else. Besides, as I mentioned before, I was wrong in my assumption. But in an ultimate attempt to dodge my guilt, I will blame Fredmiranda forums for starting unfounded rumors
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/965090And how many companies in San Luis Obispo do you know that outsource their products ? And still say on their websites and catalogs that their stuff is 100% made in the USA. And have writings like this on every product you order from them :
Tripod 100%
MADE IN THE USA
Down to the smallest screw.
It's even more funny when you blame another forum thread where somebody say RRS equipment is made in Afghanistan
The whole thread you link to is just a joke..........and so is most of the comments in it
I dont read every single post in every single thread. I remember reading the original post and not following further because I couldnt care less about it. I just mentioned in the thread here because I vaguely remind that post and I quickly retracted when you showed me wrong. I really have no interest in RRS. I am not their Inquisitor nor their knight and unlike you my words doesnt carve the stone and become commandments
Besides, you seem awfully fixated in winning every single argument here. I thought this place was a place to chat about assorted topics and give subjective opinions, I didnt realize that I had to handle this forum as if I were addressing the Supreme Court.
Javier Munoz wrote
Sven Jeppesen wrote
Javier Munoz wrote
A gimbal is an amazingly simple piece of equipment. The price that Wimberley et al charge is on the outrageous side of the equation. Gimbal heads should be priced similarly to the manfrotto 393. Having a sturdy piece of metal with a couple of knobs at 100USD is not far-fetched.BTW, it is my understanding that RRS also outsources its products.
And make their products in your own state and country https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/965090
Tripod 100%
MADE IN THE USA
Down to the smallest screw.
It's even more funny when you blame another forum thread
where somebody say RRS equipment is made in Afghanistan The whole thread you link to is just a joke..........and so is most of the comments in it
I dont read every single post in every single thread. I remember reading the original post and not following further because I couldnt care less about it. I just mentioned in the thread here because I vaguely remind that post and I quickly retracted when you showed me wrong. I really have no interest in RRS. I am not their Inquisitor nor their knight and unlike you my words doesnt carve the stone and become commandments
Besides, you seem awfully fixated in winning every single argument here. I thought this place was a place to chat about assorted topics and give subjective opinions, I didnt realize that I had to handle this forum as if I were addressing the Supreme Court.
Apr 20, 2012 at 11:25 AM
p.3 #7$99 or $500 Gimbal
Javier Munoz wrote:
BTW, it is my understanding that RRS also outsources its products.I think it's funny that somebody living in San Francisco Bay claims that RRS outsorce their product. RRS are from San Luis Obispo California And make their products in your own state and country You can start a company in San Luis Obispo AND outsource products to somewhere else. Besides, as I mentioned before, I was wrong in my assumption. But in an ultimate attempt to dodge my guilt, I will blame Fredmiranda forums for starting unfounded rumors
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/965090And how many companies in San Luis Obispo do you know that outsource their products ? And still say on their websites and catalogs that their stuff is 100% made in the USA. And have writings like this on every product you order from them :
Tripod 100%
MADE IN THE USA
Down to the smallest screw.
It's even more funny when you blame another forum thread where somebody say RRS equipment is made in Afghanistan
The whole thread you link to is just a joke..........and so is most of the comments in itI dont read every single post in every single thread. I remember reading the original post and not following further because I couldnt care less about it. I just mentioned in the thread here because I vaguely remind that post and I quickly retracted when you showed me wrong. I really have no interest in RRS. I am not their Inquisitor nor their knight and unlike you my words doesnt carve the stone and become commandments
Besides, you seem awfully fixated in winning every single argument here. I thought this place was a place to chat about assorted...Show more →
And you seem not fixated in winning at all And how can you expect not getting comments and replies when posting a link saying that RRS equipment is made in Afghanistan. You can always make a post and write that Leica or Zeiss glass is made in Afghanistan, and see if you don't get any replies to that thread
Lars Johnsson wrote
Javier Munoz wrote
Sven Jeppesen wrote
Javier Munoz wrote
A gimbal is an amazingly simple piece of equipment. The price that Wimberley et al charge is on the outrageous side of the equation. Gimbal heads should be priced similarly to the manfrotto 393. Having a sturdy piece of metal with a couple of knobs at 100USD is not far-fetched.BTW, it is my understanding that RRS also outsources its products.
And make their products in your own state and country https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/965090
Tripod 100%
MADE IN THE USA
Down to the smallest screw.
It's even more funny when you blame another forum thread
where somebody say RRS equipment is made in Afghanistan The whole thread you link to is just a joke..........and so is most of the comments in it
Besides, you seem awfully fixated in winning every single argument here. I thought this place was a place to chat about assorted...Show more →
And you seem not fixated in winning at all
And how can you expect not getting comments and replies when posting a link saying that RRS equipment is made in Afghanistan. You can always make a post and write that Leica or Zeiss glass is made in Afghanistan, and see if you don't get any replies to that thread Apr 20, 2012 at 11:38 AM
p.3 #8$99 or $500 Gimbal
cputeq wrote:
Hrm, awesome find and thank you for posting it.
I've been wanting to get the gimbal experience with my old Rokkor 600mm f/5.6 (on a NEX 5N no less), but I really didn't want to buy a gimbal head that costs more than the damn lens does.
This might just convince me to try it out.
So, if I have a big lens and I buy this, would I need to buy a special lens plate, or does this gimbal also come with that plate?
You need to buy a lens-plate or a replacement foot for a big lens.
Hrm, awesome find and thank you for posting it.
I've been wanting to get the gimbal experience with my old Rokkor 600mm f/5.6 (on a NEX 5N no less), but I really didn't want to buy a gimbal head that costs more than the damn lens does.
This might just convince me to try it out.
So, if I have a big lens and I buy this, would I need to buy a special lens plate, or does this gimbal also come with that plate?
You need to buy a lens-plate or a replacement foot for a big lens.
Apr 20, 2012 at 12:20 PM
p.3 #9$99 or $500 Gimbal
Bifurcator wrote:
HK knock-offs are cheaper, crappier, direct and somewhat mindless copies of anything and everything they can figure out how to copy with the sole purpose of gouging out a chunk of someone else's profits. It's quite the opposite of egalitarianism or any way of attempting to better the marketplace, the product, or the world.
KaaX wrote:
Huh? It's making the world a LOT better -- it's providing more value per dollar. That's how the whole Industrial Revolution thing worked -- if you read rants by educated gentlemen of that time, you'll find that they loudly complain about ill-bred uncough men providing cheap shoddy goods -- for cheap! Horrors!
And yet this is precisely what made the Western world rich beyond belief.
I'm a history buff. I like it even more than photography and spend more time reading and researching it (American History) too, and I don't agree with this.
HK knock-offs are cheaper, crappier, direct and somewhat mindless copies of anything and everything they can figure out how to copy with the sole purpose of gouging out a chunk of someone else's profits. It's quite the opposite of egalitarianism or any way of attempting to better the marketplace, the product, or the world.
KaaX wrote:
Huh? It's making the world a LOT better -- it's providing more value per dollar. That's how the whole Industrial Revolution thing worked -- if you read rants by educated gentlemen of that time, you'll find that they loudly complain about ill-bred uncough men providing cheap shoddy goods -- for cheap! Horrors!
And yet this is precisely what made the Western world rich beyond belief.
I'm a history buff. I like it even more than photography and spend more time reading and researching it (American History) too, and I don't agree with this.
Apr 21, 2012 at 06:11 AM
p.3 #10$99 or $500 Gimbal
The history of the Industrial Revolution is full of hucksters, cheats, and scofflaws, to be sure, and some of the most cherished inventors (like Thomas Edison) were masters of manipulation-- but the idea that patent law itself impeded progress is nonsense.
Intellectual property protections fueled the Industrial Revolution. The principle of patent is many centuries old, and the first US patent law was passed in 1790 by the first Congress, which led to one of the most famous patent cases in US history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/10/1028whitney-cotton-gin/
The biggest complaint about the cotton gin? "Hey, great idea! It will save me millions. But it's too expensive!!!"
It's not surprising that many people are ignorant of this history. It's disheartening, though, to see that photographers -- people who presumably have a self-interest in protecting their own intellectual property -- can be just as ignorant as the general population. I'll be sure to make note of the contributors to this thread who have given me permission to exploit their photographs as my own, all in the name of "progress."
Bifurcator, you seem to be aware of these issues, and yet have no problem supporting and promoting people who are thieves. What does that say about you? From my perspective, that makes you even more ethically culpable than those who are simply ignorant.
Intellectual property protections fueled the Industrial Revolution. The principle of patent is many centuries old, and the first US patent law was passed in 1790 by the first Congress, which led to one of the most famous patent cases in US history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/10/1028whitney-cotton-gin/
The biggest complaint about the cotton gin? "Hey, great idea! It will save me millions. But it's too expensive!!!"
It's not surprising that many people are ignorant of this history. It's disheartening, though, to see that photographers -- people who presumably have a self-interest in protecting their own intellectual property -- can be just as ignorant as the general population. I'll be sure to make note of the contributors to this thread who have given me permission to exploit their photographs as my own, all in the name of "progress."
Bifurcator, you seem to be aware of these issues, and yet have no problem supporting and promoting people who are thieves. What does that say about you? From my perspective, that makes you even more ethically culpable than those who are simply ignorant.
Apr 21, 2012 at 07:34 AM
p.3 #11$99 or $500 Gimbal
Smiert Spionam wrote:
The history of the Industrial Revolution is full of hucksters, cheats, and scofflaws, to be sure, and some of the most cherished inventors (like Thomas Edison) were masters of manipulation-- but the idea that patent law itself impeded progress is nonsense.
Intellectual property protections fueled the Industrial Revolution. The principle of patent is many centuries old, and the first US patent law was passed in 1790 by the first Congress, which led to one of the most famous patent cases in US history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/10/1028whitney-cotton-gin/
The biggest complaint about the cotton gin? "Hey, great idea! It will save me millions. But it's...Show more →
Yes I agree with all of your points. Even to the point of my own conflicted behaviors and I offer no explanation other than the duality of good and evil we all possess and justify in whatever ways we may that our individual sanities be preserved. I actually do struggle with such decisions yet in the end I'm am found lacking for want and rationalization. I accept and tolerate a degree of evil within my nature especially when said deeds themselves are so easily confounded by the human condition. This purchase and thread is a perfect example; I know there is wrong in it yet for my own want of the thing with the justification that it is putting food on someone's table and shielded by the knowledge that I would never otherwise pay $600 for the same, I maintain a constitution of ethical integrity to an acceptable degree. Even if only determined by myself.
Perhaps an absurd point of irony in this; I'm related to the Whitney family, the very same who invented the cotton gin!
Let the shredding begin - barring ridiculous parallels of course...
The history of the Industrial Revolution is full of hucksters, cheats, and scofflaws, to be sure, and some of the most cherished inventors (like Thomas Edison) were masters of manipulation-- but the idea that patent law itself impeded progress is nonsense.
Intellectual property protections fueled the Industrial Revolution. The principle of patent is many centuries old, and the first US patent law was passed in 1790 by the first Congress, which led to one of the most famous patent cases in US history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/10/1028whitney-cotton-gin/
The biggest complaint about the cotton gin? "Hey, great idea! It will save me millions. But it's...Show more →
Yes I agree with all of your points. Even to the point of my own conflicted behaviors and I offer no explanation other than the duality of good and evil we all possess and justify in whatever ways we may that our individual sanities be preserved. I actually do struggle with such decisions yet in the end I'm am found lacking for want and rationalization. I accept and tolerate a degree of evil within my nature especially when said deeds themselves are so easily confounded by the human condition. This purchase and thread is a perfect example; I know there is wrong in it yet for my own want of the thing with the justification that it is putting food on someone's table and shielded by the knowledge that I would never otherwise pay $600 for the same, I maintain a constitution of ethical integrity to an acceptable degree. Even if only determined by myself.
Perhaps an absurd point of irony in this; I'm related to the Whitney family, the very same who invented the cotton gin!
Let the shredding begin - barring ridiculous parallels of course...
Apr 21, 2012 at 12:52 PM
p.3 #12$99 or $500 Gimbal
https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts&hl=en#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbm=pts&q=wimberley+Winchester&oq=wimberley+Winchester
US7954774 actually has the Wimberly Head as an example application. I haven't looked into whether the Chinese one does actually infringe any of those. Simply because something looks more or less the same doesn't mean it uses any patented tech from the other one. And the basic principle of a gimbal mount is definitely not patentable any more.
US7954774 actually has the Wimberly Head as an example application. I haven't looked into whether the Chinese one does actually infringe any of those. Simply because something looks more or less the same doesn't mean it uses any patented tech from the other one. And the basic principle of a gimbal mount is definitely not patentable any more.
Apr 21, 2012 at 01:26 PM
p.3 #13$99 or $500 Gimbal
I also have no idea about the internal aspects of the Induro or the Beike. I bet it's not the same tho. Reverse engineering is too much to expect from makers like these.
Apr 21, 2012 at 02:02 PM
p.3 #14$99 or $500 Gimbal
It's not built on the basic principle of a gimbal mount. They even write themself in the link that it's based specificly on the Wimberley WH-200 head.
Apr 21, 2012 at 02:04 PM
p.3 #15$99 or $500 Gimbal
Well, Bifurcator, at least you understand the issues at stake. You'll have to find your own way to make your peace with your old uncle Eli.
;- )
;- )
Apr 21, 2012 at 02:04 PM
p.3 #16$99 or $500 Gimbal
Even though the marketing material for the Beike gimbal mentions Wimberley, it doesn't necessarily mean that the product itself has anything to do with the Wimberley, apart from the fact that both look like gimbals and that Beike is actually marketing it as a direct Wimberley knock-off, even though it doesn't even have the same measurements (apart from the QR system and the vertical slide perhaps). Actually, I'm willing to bet that the Wimberley has very different internals.
Granted, I'm not really sure if any other makers have a similar design, and as MichaD above pointed out, the basic principle is probably considered legacy and as such cannot be protected by any patents anymore.
Granted, I'm not really sure if any other makers have a similar design, and as MichaD above pointed out, the basic principle is probably considered legacy and as such cannot be protected by any patents anymore.
Apr 21, 2012 at 02:21 PM
p.3 #17$99 or $500 Gimbal
The overt statement that it's a copy of the Wimberley gimbal is pretty bad.
I suspect many of these kinds of products would be shut down in litigation if they were made by US companies, or those that had a significant presence here. The cost of litigation, and the potential for the company to simply reorganize under another shell, make it very hard to pursue otherwise legitimate infringement claims. The lack of a judgment against the infringers isn't evidence that they haven't done anything wrong -- it may just be that it was too difficult or expensive to pursue.
There was talk five or six years ago about a Gitzo lawsuit against Benro (and more likely, and effectively, against Mamiya/MAC/Induro), though I never heard about the disposition of the case. It's hard to see Gitzo letting this drop, given the amount of money involved.
The other wrinkle is that some of this likely falls more under trademark / trade dress than patent law.
I suspect many of these kinds of products would be shut down in litigation if they were made by US companies, or those that had a significant presence here. The cost of litigation, and the potential for the company to simply reorganize under another shell, make it very hard to pursue otherwise legitimate infringement claims. The lack of a judgment against the infringers isn't evidence that they haven't done anything wrong -- it may just be that it was too difficult or expensive to pursue.
There was talk five or six years ago about a Gitzo lawsuit against Benro (and more likely, and effectively, against Mamiya/MAC/Induro), though I never heard about the disposition of the case. It's hard to see Gitzo letting this drop, given the amount of money involved.
The other wrinkle is that some of this likely falls more under trademark / trade dress than patent law.
Apr 21, 2012 at 02:24 PM
p.3 #18$99 or $500 Gimbal
Bifurcator wrote:
Intellectual property protections fueled the Industrial Revolution. The principle of patent is many centuries old, and the first US patent law was passed in 1790 by the first Congress, which led to one of the most famous patent cases in US history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/10/1028whitney-cotton-gin/
The biggest complaint about the cotton gin? "Hey, great idea! It will save me millions. But it's too expensive!!!"
It's not surprising that many people are ignorant of this history. It's disheartening, though, to see that photographers -- people who presumably have a self-interest in protecting their own intellectual property -- can be just as ignorant as the general population. I'll be sure to make note of the contributors to this thread who have given me permission to exploit their photograpbhs as my own, all in the name of "progress."
Bifurcator, you seem to be aware of these issues, and yet have no problem supporting and promoting people who are thieves. What does that say about you? From my perspective, that makes you even more ethically culpable than those who are simply ignorant.Yes I agree with all of your points. Even to the point of my own conflicted behaviors and I offer no explanation other than the duality of good and evil we all possess and justify in whatever ways we may that our individual sanities be preserved. I actually do struggle with such decisions yet in the end I'm am found lacking for want and rationalization. I accept and tolerate a degree of evil within my nature especially when said deeds themselves are so easily confounded by the human condition. This purchase and thread is a perfect example; I know there...Show more →
Bifurcator
I don't think we need to suffer too much pain over our purchase of a gimbal head similar to the Wimberley design. Based on the link below, the Wimberley gimbal head was introduced in 1991, meaning the patent probably expired by 2011. It seems like more than a coincidence that the $99 models are hitting the market now. In a similar vein, are we to to feel guilty for accepting a $10 generic drug instead of paying $120 to the original pharmaceutical company? Store brand, over-the-counter generics usually name the original products they are comparable to on their label. Should we only buy the original Bayer brand aspirin (patented in Germany in 1899)?
http://www.tripodhead.com/products/wimberley-main.cfm
I, much like you, felt the need to wash, just to feel clean again, only to discover that my store brand generic soap says right on the label "Comparable to Dove" and was purchased at only half the price. It even looks and smells like the original. Will this theivery never end?
If I wanted the best and was willing to spend $600, I would have purchased the Wimberley head and would encourage others to do so, but for now the $99 model should do for me.
Please enjoy your gimbal head mount in good conscience without such inner conflict.
Edited on Apr 21, 2012 at 11:42 PM · View previous versions
Smiert Spionam wrote
The history of the Industrial Revolution is full of hucksters, cheats, and scofflaws, to be sure, and some of the most cherished inventors (like Thomas Edison) were masters of manipulation-- but the idea that patent law itself impeded progress is nonsense.Intellectual property protections fueled the Industrial Revolution. The principle of patent is many centuries old, and the first US patent law was passed in 1790 by the first Congress, which led to one of the most famous patent cases in US history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/10/1028whitney-cotton-gin/
The biggest complaint about the cotton gin? "Hey, great idea! It will save me millions. But it's too expensive!!!"
It's not surprising that many people are ignorant of this history. It's disheartening, though, to see that photographers -- people who presumably have a self-interest in protecting their own intellectual property -- can be just as ignorant as the general population. I'll be sure to make note of the contributors to this thread who have given me permission to exploit their photograpbhs as my own, all in the name of "progress."
Bifurcator, you seem to be aware of these issues, and yet have no problem supporting and promoting people who are thieves. What does that say about you? From my perspective, that makes you even more ethically culpable than those who are simply ignorant.
Bifurcator
I don't think we need to suffer too much pain over our purchase of a gimbal head similar to the Wimberley design. Based on the link below, the Wimberley gimbal head was introduced in 1991, meaning the patent probably expired by 2011. It seems like more than a coincidence that the $99 models are hitting the market now. In a similar vein, are we to to feel guilty for accepting a $10 generic drug instead of paying $120 to the original pharmaceutical company? Store brand, over-the-counter generics usually name the original products they are comparable to on their label. Should we only buy the original Bayer brand aspirin (patented in Germany in 1899)?
http://www.tripodhead.com/products/wimberley-main.cfm
I, much like you, felt the need to wash, just to feel clean again, only to discover that my store brand generic soap says right on the label "Comparable to Dove" and was purchased at only half the price. It even looks and smells like the original. Will this theivery never end?
If I wanted the best and was willing to spend $600, I would have purchased the Wimberley head and would encourage others to do so, but for now the $99 model should do for me.
Please enjoy your gimbal head mount in good conscience without such inner conflict.
Edited on Apr 21, 2012 at 11:42 PM · View previous versions
Apr 21, 2012 at 10:08 PM
p.3 #19$99 or $500 Gimbal
@Sjjindra,
Those Wimberley knock-offs are not hitting the market now (2012) They have been around many years. And this head didn't hit the market 2012 either
And the Wimberley head in your link was not from 1991. The one you see on the pic in your link is rather new
Those Wimberley knock-offs are not hitting the market now (2012) They have been around many years. And this head didn't hit the market 2012 either
And the Wimberley head in your link was not from 1991. The one you see on the pic in your link is rather new
Apr 21, 2012 at 11:41 PM
p.3 #20$99 or $500 Gimbal
Your analogy serves your rationalization, but otherwise it's very weak. For starters, you've got the FDA to ensure that the generic doesn't just look like, but actually performs like, the original. With yoour gimbal, you have no such protection. Furthermore, this is a matter of not only patents, but trademark; no drug maker can try to fool you into thinking that the product you're buying is actually Bayer,when it's actually cooked up in a Shenzhen counterfeit shop. And finally, I'd like to think that photographers would have a little more respect for the contributions that a tiny company made to their craft than they might have for a multinational multi billion dollar pharmaceutical company -- but maybe I'm an idealist.
Enjoy your rationalization, though.
Enjoy your rationalization, though.
Apr 22, 2012 at 12:10 AM